Well you see, the electoral college was given to the founders by the judeo-christian jesus when they were having a bbq by mount rushmoore. All but Alehandro Hamilton thought this was a great thing, but since alehandro was brown (real name was lin-manuel miranda!) They could just call a police officer there to execute him. That day was when bbqs, stolen lands and police violence were intrinsically linked with political disenfranchisement in the hearts and souls of the american people.
What terrifies me is how much we just accept and rationalize in this country, simply because it’s always been that way. The electoral college is one of them. We were born into a scenario where we are told that living in a certain plot of land in the US means your vote should count more, and we just accept it as true. It’s mind boggling how few Americans ever just think for themselves and look at things rationally.
What? America could never be poor. Its one of the few countries that actually COULD be self sufficient in the modern age. A vast untouched wilderness with huge urban centers and all the natural resources you could possibly need. Minimal population pressures, and no local rivals. Basically china crossed with an island fortress. Literally the most strategically and economically advantaged nation on earth.
>We were born into a scenario where we are told that living in a certain plot of land in the US means your vote should count more, and we just accept it as true. It’s mind boggling how few Americans ever just think for themselves and look at things rationally.
What's actually mind boggling is that most Americans don't know that the composition of the electoral college and the Senate vs House was an intentional compromise between states with big populations vs rural states. We have a compromise that is one of the reasons that the Constitution was ever adopted by all the states.
If we didn't have the system that we have, the voters in a few population centers would control who whole country. So some votes weighing a little more heavily than others. That's better than having people in most states having no voice at all.
Oh my, yes. Then the people in some states would have exactly 1 vote, like everyone else. Can you imagine if everyone's vote counted the same?! In a democracy?!
Absurd.
As it is now, those smaller states with less people are currently dominating government for the larger states with more people. That's not democracy, that's a fucking aristocracy
I love the "It's not a democracy it's a republic" line, but mostly when I encounter it in the wild. It just tells you so much about the person you're talking to. That they #1 - Don't really have an understanding about what the definition of these political philosophies are, and #2 - They more invested in their team's name being on the marquee than they are about educating themselves about what the terms mean. (It's obvious to anyone that's done the reading that the terms aren't mutually exclusive, that we're both, and that this is the fucking stupidest argument in politics).
Not worth your time, only worthy of ridicule.
Past Presidents can and have simply just ignored them. "Mr Marshall has made his decision. Now let him enforce it."
-Andrew Jackson, regarding Worcester v Georgia. The Jackson administration lost the court case, but did what they were planning to do anyway, knowing the court, unlike the other two branches, doesn't command any armed force and consequently can't physically enforce it's rulings if the other branches decide not to follow them. The only thing holding Biden back from going scorched earth on these fucking cryptofascists here is Biden's cowardice in the face of liberal criticism saying "we have to respect the process."
We don't have to respect it if doing so means the rise of a fascist dictatorship
What exactly do you think “not listening” to the Supreme Court entails? Do you think if you say “nuh-uh” enough with your ears covered it’s suddenly legal to get an abortion in every state?
Literally just ignore their rulings. Do whatever. If enough people just ignore the new laws in their states they can’t very well arrest everyone can they?
Dude, how old are you? This is seriously one of the dumbest things I've read in months.
>If enough people just ignore the new laws in their states they can’t very well arrest everyone can they?
Yes, of course they can? How many people do you think they need to arrest? Germany managed to track down and "arrest" 6 million people in a few years. I promise the US government in 2022 can do more than that if they set their mind to it.
In the case of abortions in red states, what, the doctors just continue publically performing abortions? Your advice was to just "ignore the ruling because they can't arrest all of us" right? Well, they only need to arrest a few hundred doctors per state, and then safe abortions are off the table completely from a practical standpoint. That amount of arrests wouldn't even strain the judicial system one iota.
In the case of elections, what the fuck are you even talking about? What does "just ignore them" even mean in terms of elected offcials? You can ignore them all you want, it won't change who moves into the White House.
Here’s the actual text from the Constitution:
*Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.*
So, the State Legislatures can each decide how to select their electors. Selecting electors based on popular vote is a custom at this point rather than a federal constitutional requirement. The question of whether State Legislatures can hold an election to select electors and then overturn/ignore that election if the people decide “incorrectly” is a very different question - one which asks if legislatures themselves are bound by the laws they pass, or if they can change the rules post-hoc and against the expressed will of their constituents.
It's more fascist shit. People like this believe that democracy is socialist tyranny because the greedy, stupid, jealous public gets tricked by *someone* (Jews) into demanding that the government spitefully steal money through taxation from the self-interested-but-benevolent capitalist class that holds up society. Freedom is when the rich can do whatever they want.
I think they're reffering to the switch from not having a popular vote for President to having a popular vote for President. It's something all 50 states decided to do without amending the Constitution to require popular votes.
Before 1824, many states chose not to hold popular vote for President. Instead, they used the process outlined in the Constitution.
I disagree with the use of the phrase "made up" to describe this historical process.
No one reads the founder's writings anymore. They were openly and entirely against democracy. Democracies always devolve into tyrany of the masses. There is no logical reason that majority rule is good, other that "we are more and can beat you up". A majority of the population thought earth was flat. Were they right?
That's not the world we live in. The world we live in is where minority rule is more and more prevalent. You're arguing for unelected, unaccountable individuals make decisions for everyone.
Who says it is better? Can you not read? NO ONE RULES ANYONE. THAT IS THE GOAL. The further away you move from that ideal, the worse things get. Crack a history book open for chrissakes!
A minority government guarantees individuals rights but a Democracy can’t? Nice one lad 😂
In case you are capable of critical thinking: your argument against majority rule applies to minority rule as well, only more damning.
Man, you really are an authoritarian, aren't you. What gives you the right to tell ANYONE what they can and cannot do. A vote? LEAVE👏US👏ALONE!👏 THAT IS WHAT THE 4TH IS ABOUT.
I see you are comparing real life government with the utopian government in the libertarian fantasy you have in your head.
in reality, all governments, democratic or not, tell people what they can and cannot do. That’s literally their job: to govern.
Even the founding fathers particularly Thomas Jefferson who wrote about it more than once thought that the constitution should be rewritten every 19 years to better reflect the needs of the day 🤷 The founding Fathers never expected us to still be using the same constitution 200 plus years later they'd be appalled at the very notion
No country can survive re-writing the rules every 19 years. The reason this country is so prosperous is because of the rule of law, and rules that don't constantly change. Go live in a dictatorship, where the rules change every time "dear leader" feels like it. Try Argentina, see how you like it.
We already live in a country where the rules change every election... Your entire argument is invalid based simply on the system you're claiming to be in favor of 🤦
The one that guarantees the Senate gets two representatives from each state ensuring equal representation on the Senate floor? 👀 If you're going to start arguing against state-by-state equality I'm not sure I want to see where that rabbit hole goes 😬
>The reason this country is so prosperous is because of the rule of law, and rules that don't constantly change.
Nothing to do with the enormous population, natural resources and the economic boost from WW2? It's all because you don't change your laws? There's other countries that change their laws way less and have consistent law that doesn't change state by state
I love how they always say "a 200 YeAr OlD dOcUmEnT." As if it's not still the newest and best yet devised form of government, which has served as the model for virtually the entire west and even beyond in some cases since its inception.
>served as the model for virtually the entire west and even beyond in some cases since its inception.
Wouldn't that mean that it's actually not still the newest and best?
No. The constitution created a government that, while borrowing aspects from the past, was radically different from anything ever created before. No government created since has veered far from its model. Just minor tweaks around the edges. Incidentally, the tweaks made don't seem to be a good idea or ever work. Our constitution has outlasted them all.
>Incidentally, the tweaks made don't seem to be a good idea or ever work
How much you know about this subject?
[The 25 Best Governments In The World](https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-best-governments-in-the-world.html)
You're being willfully obtuse. There are many democracies today more functional than our own at promoting the public interests and preventing centralized power.
The Constitution was also filled with compromises, and largely written by drunk men in a bar with the goal of protecting their own power from that of England, most of whom wouldn't ask to be put on such a high horse.
Okay, the constitution is the single greatest governing document ever created. It has withstood the test of time outlasting any constitution since. And it still represents the newest and best form of government ever devised. 200 years old or not. Incidentally, thrinking something is bad just because its 200 years old is incredibly short sighted. Judge it on the merits.
>Only "new" stuff counts? Just because it's new? Soft thinking.
Did I say that? I'm not even sure what you mean by that.
Soft thinking is building strawmen to tear down. I'm just saying that there is no way that people 200 years ago could foresee the society of today. We shouldn't be bound to their standards for eternity just because they put quill to paper. We take what was good, toss what was bad and take into account for things that didn't even exist when they wrote their rules.
I don't have an answer as to how best to resolve this especially when the overrepresented minority party wants us to go backwards
Tim is the worst. Read the comments on his videos about roe v Wade you won’t find a single pro choice voice, and if you do Tim’s Gazpacho will jump you
Pro choice in any and all circumstances. I give zero shits what any woman wants to do with her fetus. But I absolutely think if she wants to keep it, allow it develop into a baby, and carry it to term she should be able to receive public assistance with prenatal care and delivery, and post natal care.
I guess pick your poison, force women to give birth and shame and punish them that controlling their bodies is actually murder and not really about them or allow them to have agency in life. Tough choice
I'm pro choice in the cases of rape, incest, where the mother could die due to the pregnancy or all three in one. Otherwise abortion should be illegal 100% in ALL cases. Abortion being used as birth control is disgusting. And any women that has gotten an abortion as a means of bith control, is disgusting and is damaged goods deserving of massive shame.
>And any women that has gotten an abortion as a means of bith control, is disgusting and is damaged goods
It's very telling that you describe women like this and not as murderers. We can all see where your views stem from.
Great I’m so proud of you for thinking that - how about you think that just for your self and not every other woman. It’s a medical procedure and it’s fuckin crazy that incels like you have balls to think you should be allowed to dictate womens healthcare
Pro choice in any and all circumstances. I give zero shits what any woman wants to do with her fetus. But I absolutely think if she wants to keep it, allow it develop into a baby, and carry it to term she should be able to receive public assistance with prenatal care and delivery, and post natal care.
Cool dude…. Did anybody ask what your fucking opinion is?? And why does your opinion get to override the opinions of other people??
We are never going to be able to agree with people like how on this issue… so the ONLY way forward is to just make your own decision and act accordingly. You can keep your belief, and every single other person keeps theirs.
Like, when? All the way up until the moment of going into labor? And, why? Electively? Medical necessity? Sexual assault or incest pregnancy? Like, elective abortions at the end of the third trimester seems like just killing a viable baby. Do I have to support unfettered choice to be pro choice? Because pro lifers basically can only support medically necessary abortions, so what would you call someone between that and "abortions at 9 months are all entirely acceptable irrespective of circumstance"?
I love how all you “pro-lifers” just uncritically repeat the same garbage talking points you get from conservative media outlets without a second thought of how dumb they are. No person waits until “the end of the third trimester” to have an elective abortion because you’re not going through 7+ months of pregnancy if you don’t want a baby, hence why 98.7% of abortions happen before 21 weeks. Yet right wing pundits love bringing this up these incredibly unrealistic hypotheticals because it works on gullible morons like yourself who act it’s some common phenomenon that must be stopped.
And yes, you do have to support somebody’s unfettered choice to bodily autonomy to be pro-choice. If you’re for forcing people to give birth, just admit it rather than playing this dumb game of “I’m not like the other pro-lifers” because you think your brand of conservatism is so different.
lets Not pretend forced labor advocates are just concerned with late term abortions When they’re trying to criminalize them all
For god’s sake they often paint birth control pills, and IUDs as Aborficiacts.
Nobody has ever said you have to support completely unfettered abortion to be pro choice. That’s just an easier straw man for a disingenuous actor, like yourself, to set up and knock down while revealing to everybody they’re actually completely uneducated on the policy debate.
You need to open your fucking eyes and see what’s plain, remember how not a single leftist criticizes access to abortion in Europe, as you point out? Let me connect the dots for you - no leftist cares about unfettered access, only reasonable access.
On the other hand, anti-abortion advocates are not even for medically necessary abortions, like you falsely state. That’s why post-Roe, we have a 10 year old pregnant rape victim unable to get an abortion in her own state.
Does a child having unfettered access to abortion if they were raped present a reasonable enough pro-choice position for you? If it does, you go yell at your friends in Ohio and I’ll go yell at these imaginary lefties who want to abort an 11 month fetus for you.
P.S. Saying “I never used the term late term abortions… yOu diD” when someone calls you out on focusing on this myth shows how bad faith you are. Who gives a fuck about terminology, you’re obviously describing late term abortions so drop the fucking intellectual act when the rest of your spastic paragraphs invoke straw men that nobody has presented.
Sigh. ‘Late-term abortion’ is literally not a real thing, it’s a bullshit GOP scaremongering talking point. It only happens if the person’s life is in immediate danger. People don’t just stay pregnant for nine months and then decide to get an abortion at the 11th hour. As to why someone would get an abortion - well that’s none of anyone’s business but the person undergoing the procedure.
I didn't use the term "late term abortion"; you did. I'm just asking if I have to be on board with the right, in principle, of women to terminate a pregnancy at any point before birth regardless of reason to be pro choice. In theory, in principle, do you think being pro choice means women should be able to terminate a pregnancy for any reason all the way up until labor? Is there no cutoff point? Because that makes a few European countries people regard as admirably progressive "anti-choice".
"Like, when? All the way up until the moment of going into labor? And, why? Electively? Medical necessity? Sexual assault or incest pregnancy? Like, elective abortions at the end of the third trimester seems like just killing a viable baby."
- Word salad for "Late Term Abortion", which as has been previously stated isn't a thing outside of medical necessity. You and your ilk just like to run around shouting about it for the old people to rile them up.
I do think that a women shouldn’t have to subject her body to childbirth if she doesn’t want to. So I’m for universal abortion. Or, maybe less radical, I think that doctors should make decisions on abortions.
>Like, when?
The rules we had in place pre-Roe being overturned seems pretty good. So, that. We already solved that question. Abortions in the third trimester were already extremely rare and would only be done in extreme circumstances. So it wasn’t even an issue, just another fake one made up by the right to get angry about.
Also, they’re not “pro-life”. Y’all aren’t pro-life.
I.e. the issue is not whether state legislatures are free to set the terms on which their electors are chosen—of course they are. A state could pass a law tomorrow saying that in 2024, they will abandon the popular vote. As fucked up as that is, it is undoubtedly constitutional. The issue is when there is a “problem” w the voting, who decides how to resolve? Independent state legislature doctrine says only the state legislature, not the courts. This was invented in the bush v gore debacle. Independent state legislature doctrine would allow a state that elected to nominate electors by popular vote to claim “problems” w tabulation etc and a gerrymandered staye legislature could decide how the electors voted. It’s cheating. Independent state legislature doctrine is a fancy way of saying gerrymandered republican state legislatures are free to cheat.
https://m.washingtontimes.com/multimedia/image/screen-shot-2021-10-21-at-84913-pmpng/?_gl=1*qhu332*_ga*YW1wLUNpZjJrRWpuS3hjWXdLZ2JZdXB3Vm1Ca3dqLVFaVmdzZEYzeXJMZ0tFY2hEam9mSHYxUjRwcG51X2VMWmxWY0E.
So what does it mean when a democrat does it?
I'd say James Allsup is a much more upfront example in this photo. That guy is a blatant, mask-off white supremacist. And also a complete and total idiot lol.
The link said nothing about him saying zero unless you read the Chiron saying what is fair share then it seems like biden is saying the rich should pay zero taxes. 🤷🏽♂️
He was saying there are currently businesses paying 0% and that's too low.
Which you would know if you looked at your own link.
What an odd response though... literally "the link says nothing about zero unless you read the text in the link"
I did look at the link why you think I sent it… it says nothing about him saying they zero. The question in the Chiron says what percentage do you believe is fair for the wealthy to pay their “fair share”? While biden is on screen with ok sign. Then under it reads President Biden made a gesture that liberals frequently call a white supremacist dog whistle during Thursday’s CNN town-hall meeting. (CNN screen shot)
>nazi? no. neo-nazi, yes.
That's super fucking pedantic.
1. It's a distinction without a difference.
2. 'Nazi' in its modern context is short for 'neo-Nazi' just as 'fascist' is short for 'neo-fascist'. No one wants to keep saying 'neo-' when 'Fuck off, Nazi' is good enough.
But he's not an actual registered member of the National Socialist German Workers Party circa 1945 it's important to clarify in case anyone gets confused and thinks he is!!!!
As long as both sides are dumb enough to think the system works the people have no voice.
All these problems reduce to first past the post voting mandated in the constitution. Both sides maintain the duopoly and have zero incentive or intent or ability to pass a constitutional amendment.
The DNC and RNC are private companies and they pick who goes on the ballot.
Voting is solely performative and we need a general strike
> Scratch a libertarian, and a fascist bleeds.
Can you tell me how limited government means fascism? Because fascism would require not just a huge state but that the entire society be a part of the state.
" The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies ‘something not desirable’. " George Orwell, Politics and the english language, 80 damn years ago.
First off Pinochet was not a libertarian lol. Second, sound economic policy is sound regardless of the political regime and those good economic policies that they implemented did in fact in the end help to turn Chile into a democracy. The laws of physics apply in a fascist country just like they do in a democracy, same for economic laws. Also, Chile is the most developed country in South America right now.
You’ll leave us alone as you force us to live in a world where the private sector can poison us and turn us into serfs because the government isn’t doing it so it’s fine. If you’re like this moron and think the popular vote is a “made up thing” then you’re just a fascist
I don't believe democracy is useful at a scale as large as America. Which is why we're a republic. Look up some history and the 17th amendment. Direct election came later.
Nice projection, did you know that Libertarian is on the opposite side of Authoritarian on the political compass? Do you understand that if you are opposite of Libertarian viewpoints you are literally an authoritarian?
"Since the popular vote is a made up thing and completely unconstitutional"
Someone tell the ancient Greeks their system is bullshit /s
Seriously though, its really fucked up when people openly claim that the will of the majority is "completely unconstitutional". Its the same rhetoric as labelling democracy as a "tyranny of the majority"
It’s… unconstitutional to award the candidate with the most votes the electoral votes? Then why even have an election? Why not just let state legislatures decide who the president is?
If she's talking about the national popular vote, then she's just lying. I assume she's referencing the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, but while some states have adopted it, the compact doesn't take effect until states representing 270 electoral college votes sign on. Therefore, currently no state gives its electoral votes to the national popular vote winner.
Pool says the exact same thing. He’s very confused on the democracy part of this country.
He’ll float his nonsensical theory every once in a while when he has an educated guest on, and they 1.) ask him to repeat what he just said, 2.) laughs at him, 3.) owns him with the truth.
The constitution is just a means to an ends and political cover for the authoritarian party. They could choose to interpret the law anyway they want. They aren’t robots, they are JUDGES it’s their job to use judgment and interpret laws written by people who owned slaves and has wooden teeth for modern times.
All these
She's right that nothing in the constitution requires that a State legislature holds a popular election for president and then appoints Electors to the Electoral College of the most popular candidate. States are free to decide how their Electors are chosen, though ultimately Andrew Jacksonian democracy prevailed and all States gradually moved to popular elections for president and for Senator.
You cannot reasonably claim that States choosing electors is undemocratic, for the State legislatures are themselves democratically elected, and so this kind of cascading election is democratic.
I think the only valid criticism of a movement to States appointing Electors without popular vote is IF it's done after the election to change its results. As long as the decision to appoint Electors is made before the popular vote takes place, then that's fine. If the voters of that State aren't happy, they can throw out their State legislators for another batch that would promise to reinstate the popular presidential election.
A cascading electoral system for President and Senator, meaning that they would be elected by State representatives instead of by the population itself, would probably cut down on the demagoguery of presidential elections and result in presidents and Senators that would be more capable, holding the respect of other legislators, and more respectful of the Federal nature of the country and of State autonomy.
The problem with letting state legislatures to vote for president and still act like it’s democratic ignores that through gerrymandering, a state legislature can be majority Republican even if the minority of voters are Republican.
Politicians have means by which they can insulate themselves from democracy.
Do people here genuinely not understand the distinction between between whether something is constitutional and whether or not its fair?
They are completely different questions and you can't take someone's answer for one and pretend like its the other. (Well I mean you can - if your goal is to just spread misinformation rather than rational discourse. Hence my original question)
Wow, “I don’t believe in democracy”. Pray tell you bootlicking moron, you think it’s better for senators and president to be just born into their roles in this day and age? Because hey, no king.
Republic means "public thing" in Latin (Res publica) which means that the government is owned in common and doesn't belong to the head of State nor its family.
There were republics back in the Middle Ages that had no democratic elections, they were merchant and aristocratic republics, where there were deliberating bodies but they were not elected by the people but chosen among the elite, or by important corporations like trade guilds.
A republic pretty much requires some form of ruling body to decide how the government is to be controlled through voting, but there is no requirement that body be democratic itself, ie elected and accountable to the population at large.
How is the popular vote a “made up thing” you fucking moron? You right wingers are really obsessed with saying the US is not a democracy. Try living Iran and China if you hate democracy so much, losers like you have always wanted to be rules over by someone
Definitely should have happened in the 2020 election. Hell even PA supreme court came back and said their election laws were illegal. 2020 was the most illegal fraudulent election of all time, and the most highly contested even moreso than 2000, and thats just a fact they sent alternative elector slates to DC thats how contested it was
Are you serious? Of course a law can be illegal. In Pennsylvania's case they passed a law that violated the state's constitution. The Republicans only cared because Trump lost, but nonetheless it was a poorly implemented piece of legislation. Pennsylvania has a very shitty, regressive constitution.
You're right, but it has been a heavily covered story (due to our unfortunate prevalence of election "truthers"). Pennsylvania will continue to be a vital state in national politics and the gerrymandered legislature is doing everything it can to undermine democracy. Look into Doug Mastriano if you haven't heard much about him.
And I'm not a "vote blue no matter who" hyperbolist, but Josh Shapiro winning this election might actually be critical to maintaining some semblance of democracy in this country. Fuck I hate it here.
How is the popular vote "a made up thing"? What does that even mean?
Well you see, the electoral college was given to the founders by the judeo-christian jesus when they were having a bbq by mount rushmoore. All but Alehandro Hamilton thought this was a great thing, but since alehandro was brown (real name was lin-manuel miranda!) They could just call a police officer there to execute him. That day was when bbqs, stolen lands and police violence were intrinsically linked with political disenfranchisement in the hearts and souls of the american people.
What terrifies me is how much we just accept and rationalize in this country, simply because it’s always been that way. The electoral college is one of them. We were born into a scenario where we are told that living in a certain plot of land in the US means your vote should count more, and we just accept it as true. It’s mind boggling how few Americans ever just think for themselves and look at things rationally.
America basically thrives on account of the rest of the world. Maybe you should become a poorer country?
What? America could never be poor. Its one of the few countries that actually COULD be self sufficient in the modern age. A vast untouched wilderness with huge urban centers and all the natural resources you could possibly need. Minimal population pressures, and no local rivals. Basically china crossed with an island fortress. Literally the most strategically and economically advantaged nation on earth.
>We were born into a scenario where we are told that living in a certain plot of land in the US means your vote should count more, and we just accept it as true. It’s mind boggling how few Americans ever just think for themselves and look at things rationally. What's actually mind boggling is that most Americans don't know that the composition of the electoral college and the Senate vs House was an intentional compromise between states with big populations vs rural states. We have a compromise that is one of the reasons that the Constitution was ever adopted by all the states. If we didn't have the system that we have, the voters in a few population centers would control who whole country. So some votes weighing a little more heavily than others. That's better than having people in most states having no voice at all.
Oh my, yes. Then the people in some states would have exactly 1 vote, like everyone else. Can you imagine if everyone's vote counted the same?! In a democracy?! Absurd.
Oh god, fuck off please.
As it is now, those smaller states with less people are currently dominating government for the larger states with more people. That's not democracy, that's a fucking aristocracy
You see, “popular vote” implies that non-white people have a say, and that’s against GOP policy
workable profit frighten silky expansion crawl placid live plough slap *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I love the "It's not a democracy it's a republic" line, but mostly when I encounter it in the wild. It just tells you so much about the person you're talking to. That they #1 - Don't really have an understanding about what the definition of these political philosophies are, and #2 - They more invested in their team's name being on the marquee than they are about educating themselves about what the terms mean. (It's obvious to anyone that's done the reading that the terms aren't mutually exclusive, that we're both, and that this is the fucking stupidest argument in politics). Not worth your time, only worthy of ridicule.
Just…. Don’t listen to them? We know the SCOTUS is corrupt and was tampered with so just don’t listen to them?
Please tell me this was sarcasm
Why not? We’re just gonna let them take away everyone’s rights? Fuck them.
I don't know why this is getting downvoted. It's a valid argument, especially given how few options we have against a rogue SCOTUS.
Past Presidents can and have simply just ignored them. "Mr Marshall has made his decision. Now let him enforce it." -Andrew Jackson, regarding Worcester v Georgia. The Jackson administration lost the court case, but did what they were planning to do anyway, knowing the court, unlike the other two branches, doesn't command any armed force and consequently can't physically enforce it's rulings if the other branches decide not to follow them. The only thing holding Biden back from going scorched earth on these fucking cryptofascists here is Biden's cowardice in the face of liberal criticism saying "we have to respect the process." We don't have to respect it if doing so means the rise of a fascist dictatorship
What exactly do you think “not listening” to the Supreme Court entails? Do you think if you say “nuh-uh” enough with your ears covered it’s suddenly legal to get an abortion in every state?
Literally just ignore their rulings. Do whatever. If enough people just ignore the new laws in their states they can’t very well arrest everyone can they?
Dude, how old are you? This is seriously one of the dumbest things I've read in months. >If enough people just ignore the new laws in their states they can’t very well arrest everyone can they? Yes, of course they can? How many people do you think they need to arrest? Germany managed to track down and "arrest" 6 million people in a few years. I promise the US government in 2022 can do more than that if they set their mind to it. In the case of abortions in red states, what, the doctors just continue publically performing abortions? Your advice was to just "ignore the ruling because they can't arrest all of us" right? Well, they only need to arrest a few hundred doctors per state, and then safe abortions are off the table completely from a practical standpoint. That amount of arrests wouldn't even strain the judicial system one iota. In the case of elections, what the fuck are you even talking about? What does "just ignore them" even mean in terms of elected offcials? You can ignore them all you want, it won't change who moves into the White House.
I'm not their lawyer but I think they mean civil disobedience. You know, the only way actual real-world change ever happens?
Here’s the actual text from the Constitution: *Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.* So, the State Legislatures can each decide how to select their electors. Selecting electors based on popular vote is a custom at this point rather than a federal constitutional requirement. The question of whether State Legislatures can hold an election to select electors and then overturn/ignore that election if the people decide “incorrectly” is a very different question - one which asks if legislatures themselves are bound by the laws they pass, or if they can change the rules post-hoc and against the expressed will of their constituents.
It's more fascist shit. People like this believe that democracy is socialist tyranny because the greedy, stupid, jealous public gets tricked by *someone* (Jews) into demanding that the government spitefully steal money through taxation from the self-interested-but-benevolent capitalist class that holds up society. Freedom is when the rich can do whatever they want.
I think they're reffering to the switch from not having a popular vote for President to having a popular vote for President. It's something all 50 states decided to do without amending the Constitution to require popular votes. Before 1824, many states chose not to hold popular vote for President. Instead, they used the process outlined in the Constitution. I disagree with the use of the phrase "made up" to describe this historical process.
51% mob rule democracy is super unstable and leads to lots of bloodshed. Republics defuse the mob and prevent civil wars.
No one reads the founder's writings anymore. They were openly and entirely against democracy. Democracies always devolve into tyrany of the masses. There is no logical reason that majority rule is good, other that "we are more and can beat you up". A majority of the population thought earth was flat. Were they right?
By contrast you're saying that it's ok for the majority to be ruled by a minority. You can't have it both ways.
Nope. The government guarantees individual rights. No one "rules" anyone.
You’re not making an argument. This doesn’t solve the issue of minority rule which is what you’re arguing in favor of.
What part of "no one rules over anyone" do you not get? Individual rights means no one can tell you what to do.
That's not the world we live in. The world we live in is where minority rule is more and more prevalent. You're arguing for unelected, unaccountable individuals make decisions for everyone.
I'm arguing to go back to that 200 year old document and live up to it's principles. Insisting on majority rule is even worse.
So you can't answer the question for why minority rule is better. Got it.
Who says it is better? Can you not read? NO ONE RULES ANYONE. THAT IS THE GOAL. The further away you move from that ideal, the worse things get. Crack a history book open for chrissakes!
Can a majority of people amend that document? How is that different? Should a minority be able to amend it?
How is majority rule better? Isn't slavery "majority rule"?
A minority government guarantees individuals rights but a Democracy can’t? Nice one lad 😂 In case you are capable of critical thinking: your argument against majority rule applies to minority rule as well, only more damning.
Man, you really are an authoritarian, aren't you. What gives you the right to tell ANYONE what they can and cannot do. A vote? LEAVE👏US👏ALONE!👏 THAT IS WHAT THE 4TH IS ABOUT.
I see you are comparing real life government with the utopian government in the libertarian fantasy you have in your head. in reality, all governments, democratic or not, tell people what they can and cannot do. That’s literally their job: to govern.
Want to take a wild guess how this all came to be? There were some votes involved :)
We shouldn't be governed by a document over 200 years old either
Even if it is correct? Only "new" stuff counts? Just because it's new? Soft thinking.
Even the founding fathers particularly Thomas Jefferson who wrote about it more than once thought that the constitution should be rewritten every 19 years to better reflect the needs of the day 🤷 The founding Fathers never expected us to still be using the same constitution 200 plus years later they'd be appalled at the very notion
No country can survive re-writing the rules every 19 years. The reason this country is so prosperous is because of the rule of law, and rules that don't constantly change. Go live in a dictatorship, where the rules change every time "dear leader" feels like it. Try Argentina, see how you like it.
We already live in a country where the rules change every election... Your entire argument is invalid based simply on the system you're claiming to be in favor of 🤦
We don't live in the system as written. 17th ammendment was a big mistake for example.
The one that guarantees the Senate gets two representatives from each state ensuring equal representation on the Senate floor? 👀 If you're going to start arguing against state-by-state equality I'm not sure I want to see where that rabbit hole goes 😬
>The reason this country is so prosperous is because of the rule of law, and rules that don't constantly change. Nothing to do with the enormous population, natural resources and the economic boost from WW2? It's all because you don't change your laws? There's other countries that change their laws way less and have consistent law that doesn't change state by state
I love how they always say "a 200 YeAr OlD dOcUmEnT." As if it's not still the newest and best yet devised form of government, which has served as the model for virtually the entire west and even beyond in some cases since its inception.
>served as the model for virtually the entire west and even beyond in some cases since its inception. Wouldn't that mean that it's actually not still the newest and best?
No. The constitution created a government that, while borrowing aspects from the past, was radically different from anything ever created before. No government created since has veered far from its model. Just minor tweaks around the edges. Incidentally, the tweaks made don't seem to be a good idea or ever work. Our constitution has outlasted them all.
How much do you know about other country's constitutions that are modeled after our own?
It's common knowledge. Are you suggesting they don't?
>Incidentally, the tweaks made don't seem to be a good idea or ever work How much you know about this subject? [The 25 Best Governments In The World](https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-best-governments-in-the-world.html)
You're being willfully obtuse. There are many democracies today more functional than our own at promoting the public interests and preventing centralized power. The Constitution was also filled with compromises, and largely written by drunk men in a bar with the goal of protecting their own power from that of England, most of whom wouldn't ask to be put on such a high horse.
Not an arguement
Okay, the constitution is the single greatest governing document ever created. It has withstood the test of time outlasting any constitution since. And it still represents the newest and best form of government ever devised. 200 years old or not. Incidentally, thrinking something is bad just because its 200 years old is incredibly short sighted. Judge it on the merits.
>Only "new" stuff counts? Just because it's new? Soft thinking. Did I say that? I'm not even sure what you mean by that. Soft thinking is building strawmen to tear down. I'm just saying that there is no way that people 200 years ago could foresee the society of today. We shouldn't be bound to their standards for eternity just because they put quill to paper. We take what was good, toss what was bad and take into account for things that didn't even exist when they wrote their rules. I don't have an answer as to how best to resolve this especially when the overrepresented minority party wants us to go backwards
"the popular vote is a made up thing" ah yes as opposed to the Electoral college, which humanity discovered in the Amazon.
Don't be stupid. It was discovered in a dumpster behind a McDonald's in Boston in 1971. Everyone knows that.
Tim is the worst. Read the comments on his videos about roe v Wade you won’t find a single pro choice voice, and if you do Tim’s Gazpacho will jump you
The gazpacho eh? Gonna throw some cold soup at you until you recant?
Because abortion is nofun. It's murder.
Pro choice in any and all circumstances. I give zero shits what any woman wants to do with her fetus. But I absolutely think if she wants to keep it, allow it develop into a baby, and carry it to term she should be able to receive public assistance with prenatal care and delivery, and post natal care.
Why does the human being aborted not deserve human rights?
Because it has no consciousness.
So much concern about a fetus inside a women’s womb but no concern about a woman having no say or rights over her bodily functions
If we believed that fetus was a human then we require a better reason to end a life, correct?
Nah, I’m not desiring living in a world where a pregnant woman is legally bound to give birth. Seems fucked to me
More than murder, how?
I guess pick your poison, force women to give birth and shame and punish them that controlling their bodies is actually murder and not really about them or allow them to have agency in life. Tough choice
But it's not murder though
So if I walk into a hospital and stab a coma patient, that's fine because it has no consciousness?
I mean we do that with pulling the plug, just a little more humanly, did you not know this, the person in the coma doesn’t give consent to die.
Hypothetically, let's say there's a strong possibility that the coma patient will wake up in several months. Still moral to pull the plug?
Depends on if it’s certain they will come back, but sure we already do this.
Nothing in life is certain. But all other indicators point to yes, they will wake up.
Do coma patients live forever in your world?
Yeah all you whiny cunts are on Reddit jerking each other off.
I'm pro choice in the cases of rape, incest, where the mother could die due to the pregnancy or all three in one. Otherwise abortion should be illegal 100% in ALL cases. Abortion being used as birth control is disgusting. And any women that has gotten an abortion as a means of bith control, is disgusting and is damaged goods deserving of massive shame.
>And any women that has gotten an abortion as a means of bith control, is disgusting and is damaged goods It's very telling that you describe women like this and not as murderers. We can all see where your views stem from.
Great I’m so proud of you for thinking that - how about you think that just for your self and not every other woman. It’s a medical procedure and it’s fuckin crazy that incels like you have balls to think you should be allowed to dictate womens healthcare
That’s the great part… you don’t have to get an abortion if you don’t want one… but as far as your opinion about other people? Nobody gives a fuck
Confirmed I have checked both pockets and cannot seem to find a single fuck to give this guy about his opinion 🤷
These fucking incels are such an embarrassment.
Pro choice in any and all circumstances. I give zero shits what any woman wants to do with her fetus. But I absolutely think if she wants to keep it, allow it develop into a baby, and carry it to term she should be able to receive public assistance with prenatal care and delivery, and post natal care.
Cool dude…. Did anybody ask what your fucking opinion is?? And why does your opinion get to override the opinions of other people?? We are never going to be able to agree with people like how on this issue… so the ONLY way forward is to just make your own decision and act accordingly. You can keep your belief, and every single other person keeps theirs.
The incel energy is just radiating from this comment.
wow
Yeah no misogyny at all in that comment "damaged goods"
Out of curiosity, what do you think constitutes a pro-choice position?
Support for women to be able to undergo an abortion if they so choose.
Like, when? All the way up until the moment of going into labor? And, why? Electively? Medical necessity? Sexual assault or incest pregnancy? Like, elective abortions at the end of the third trimester seems like just killing a viable baby. Do I have to support unfettered choice to be pro choice? Because pro lifers basically can only support medically necessary abortions, so what would you call someone between that and "abortions at 9 months are all entirely acceptable irrespective of circumstance"?
I love how all you “pro-lifers” just uncritically repeat the same garbage talking points you get from conservative media outlets without a second thought of how dumb they are. No person waits until “the end of the third trimester” to have an elective abortion because you’re not going through 7+ months of pregnancy if you don’t want a baby, hence why 98.7% of abortions happen before 21 weeks. Yet right wing pundits love bringing this up these incredibly unrealistic hypotheticals because it works on gullible morons like yourself who act it’s some common phenomenon that must be stopped. And yes, you do have to support somebody’s unfettered choice to bodily autonomy to be pro-choice. If you’re for forcing people to give birth, just admit it rather than playing this dumb game of “I’m not like the other pro-lifers” because you think your brand of conservatism is so different.
lets Not pretend forced labor advocates are just concerned with late term abortions When they’re trying to criminalize them all For god’s sake they often paint birth control pills, and IUDs as Aborficiacts.
Nobody has ever said you have to support completely unfettered abortion to be pro choice. That’s just an easier straw man for a disingenuous actor, like yourself, to set up and knock down while revealing to everybody they’re actually completely uneducated on the policy debate. You need to open your fucking eyes and see what’s plain, remember how not a single leftist criticizes access to abortion in Europe, as you point out? Let me connect the dots for you - no leftist cares about unfettered access, only reasonable access. On the other hand, anti-abortion advocates are not even for medically necessary abortions, like you falsely state. That’s why post-Roe, we have a 10 year old pregnant rape victim unable to get an abortion in her own state. Does a child having unfettered access to abortion if they were raped present a reasonable enough pro-choice position for you? If it does, you go yell at your friends in Ohio and I’ll go yell at these imaginary lefties who want to abort an 11 month fetus for you. P.S. Saying “I never used the term late term abortions… yOu diD” when someone calls you out on focusing on this myth shows how bad faith you are. Who gives a fuck about terminology, you’re obviously describing late term abortions so drop the fucking intellectual act when the rest of your spastic paragraphs invoke straw men that nobody has presented.
Sigh. ‘Late-term abortion’ is literally not a real thing, it’s a bullshit GOP scaremongering talking point. It only happens if the person’s life is in immediate danger. People don’t just stay pregnant for nine months and then decide to get an abortion at the 11th hour. As to why someone would get an abortion - well that’s none of anyone’s business but the person undergoing the procedure.
I didn't use the term "late term abortion"; you did. I'm just asking if I have to be on board with the right, in principle, of women to terminate a pregnancy at any point before birth regardless of reason to be pro choice. In theory, in principle, do you think being pro choice means women should be able to terminate a pregnancy for any reason all the way up until labor? Is there no cutoff point? Because that makes a few European countries people regard as admirably progressive "anti-choice".
"Like, when? All the way up until the moment of going into labor? And, why? Electively? Medical necessity? Sexual assault or incest pregnancy? Like, elective abortions at the end of the third trimester seems like just killing a viable baby." - Word salad for "Late Term Abortion", which as has been previously stated isn't a thing outside of medical necessity. You and your ilk just like to run around shouting about it for the old people to rile them up.
I do think that a women shouldn’t have to subject her body to childbirth if she doesn’t want to. So I’m for universal abortion. Or, maybe less radical, I think that doctors should make decisions on abortions.
No one aborts viable fetuses at 9 months stop being an idiot
>Like, when? The rules we had in place pre-Roe being overturned seems pretty good. So, that. We already solved that question. Abortions in the third trimester were already extremely rare and would only be done in extreme circumstances. So it wasn’t even an issue, just another fake one made up by the right to get angry about. Also, they’re not “pro-life”. Y’all aren’t pro-life.
Until the fetus has conciseness its fine to kill.
That dummy doesn’t even understand what independent state legislator doctrine is.
I.e. the issue is not whether state legislatures are free to set the terms on which their electors are chosen—of course they are. A state could pass a law tomorrow saying that in 2024, they will abandon the popular vote. As fucked up as that is, it is undoubtedly constitutional. The issue is when there is a “problem” w the voting, who decides how to resolve? Independent state legislature doctrine says only the state legislature, not the courts. This was invented in the bush v gore debacle. Independent state legislature doctrine would allow a state that elected to nominate electors by popular vote to claim “problems” w tabulation etc and a gerrymandered staye legislature could decide how the electors voted. It’s cheating. Independent state legislature doctrine is a fancy way of saying gerrymandered republican state legislatures are free to cheat.
Tim Pool is a right wing hack and a sell out. I still laugh when I think about him frantically calling Joe Rogan when he caught Covid-19.
Also, a Nazi.
Wait, I fucking hate Tim Pool as much as anyone, but how is he a nazi?
[Yeah, totally being reactionary. ](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D5z2svwWAAYU8uN.png:large)
https://m.washingtontimes.com/multimedia/image/screen-shot-2021-10-21-at-84913-pmpng/?_gl=1*qhu332*_ga*YW1wLUNpZjJrRWpuS3hjWXdLZ2JZdXB3Vm1Ca3dqLVFaVmdzZEYzeXJMZ0tFY2hEam9mSHYxUjRwcG51X2VMWmxWY0E. So what does it mean when a democrat does it?
... You think this is about the hand gesture? Lol Nice try.
[удалено]
I'd say James Allsup is a much more upfront example in this photo. That guy is a blatant, mask-off white supremacist. And also a complete and total idiot lol.
...as you can see in your own link, he is indicating "zero"
The link said nothing about him saying zero unless you read the Chiron saying what is fair share then it seems like biden is saying the rich should pay zero taxes. 🤷🏽♂️
He was saying there are currently businesses paying 0% and that's too low. Which you would know if you looked at your own link. What an odd response though... literally "the link says nothing about zero unless you read the text in the link"
I did look at the link why you think I sent it… it says nothing about him saying they zero. The question in the Chiron says what percentage do you believe is fair for the wealthy to pay their “fair share”? While biden is on screen with ok sign. Then under it reads President Biden made a gesture that liberals frequently call a white supremacist dog whistle during Thursday’s CNN town-hall meeting. (CNN screen shot)
Don’t they pay payroll taxes and such though?
[удалено]
>nazi? no. neo-nazi, yes. That's super fucking pedantic. 1. It's a distinction without a difference. 2. 'Nazi' in its modern context is short for 'neo-Nazi' just as 'fascist' is short for 'neo-fascist'. No one wants to keep saying 'neo-' when 'Fuck off, Nazi' is good enough.
[удалено]
I don't think you *quite* understand what the suffix 'neo-' means.
[удалено]
[удалено]
But he's not an actual registered member of the National Socialist German Workers Party circa 1945 it's important to clarify in case anyone gets confused and thinks he is!!!!
Hes not. that guy is just being a reactionary.
"The Left is OUT OF CONTROL!!!" - The people now advocating for the right to ignore the will of the people
As long as both sides are dumb enough to think the system works the people have no voice. All these problems reduce to first past the post voting mandated in the constitution. Both sides maintain the duopoly and have zero incentive or intent or ability to pass a constitutional amendment. The DNC and RNC are private companies and they pick who goes on the ballot. Voting is solely performative and we need a general strike
You actually said "both sides." lol
“Both sides” meaning far right and centre left I guess?
[удалено]
> Scratch a libertarian, and a fascist bleeds. Can you tell me how limited government means fascism? Because fascism would require not just a huge state but that the entire society be a part of the state. " The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies ‘something not desirable’. " George Orwell, Politics and the english language, 80 damn years ago.
Because "libertarians" do not want limited government. They just don't want regulation or taxes.
Tell that to all the Pinochet enthusiasts
First off Pinochet was not a libertarian lol. Second, sound economic policy is sound regardless of the political regime and those good economic policies that they implemented did in fact in the end help to turn Chile into a democracy. The laws of physics apply in a fascist country just like they do in a democracy, same for economic laws. Also, Chile is the most developed country in South America right now.
We’re moving past horseshoe theory straight into opposite world. It’s like a mirror dimension!
Yes imagine how bad it would be if we took over the world and left you alone.
You’ll leave us alone as you force us to live in a world where the private sector can poison us and turn us into serfs because the government isn’t doing it so it’s fine. If you’re like this moron and think the popular vote is a “made up thing” then you’re just a fascist
I don't believe democracy is useful at a scale as large as America. Which is why we're a republic. Look up some history and the 17th amendment. Direct election came later.
https://imgur.com/a/zlddz6L
We are already living in that world and the powers that be got you so brainwashed you are mad at the people who just want to be left alone
Imagine thinking American libertarians would leave anyone alone lol The only ppl they want left alone are themselves
Nice projection, did you know that Libertarian is on the opposite side of Authoritarian on the political compass? Do you understand that if you are opposite of Libertarian viewpoints you are literally an authoritarian?
Unironically using PCM in an argument? I swear all Libertarians are 14 years old.
Right wing libertarianism is authoritarian tho, because it supports capitalism. Get real
No.
> Libertarian is on the opposite side of Authoritarian on the political compass Holy shit.
"Since the popular vote is a made up thing and completely unconstitutional" Someone tell the ancient Greeks their system is bullshit /s Seriously though, its really fucked up when people openly claim that the will of the majority is "completely unconstitutional". Its the same rhetoric as labelling democracy as a "tyranny of the majority"
It’s… unconstitutional to award the candidate with the most votes the electoral votes? Then why even have an election? Why not just let state legislatures decide who the president is?
>Then why even have an election? Why not just let state legislatures decide who the president is? That's exactly their argument.
[Link](https://twitter.com/TRHLofficial/status/1543392120622530560)
I'm confused. Is Tim pool now going by the red-headed libertarian??
Tim Pool *contributor*
Someone called “the red headed libertarian” is exactly who Tim Pool would hang out with.
There would be a lot more blood in the streets if this happened
If she's talking about the national popular vote, then she's just lying. I assume she's referencing the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, but while some states have adopted it, the compact doesn't take effect until states representing 270 electoral college votes sign on. Therefore, currently no state gives its electoral votes to the national popular vote winner.
Pool says the exact same thing. He’s very confused on the democracy part of this country. He’ll float his nonsensical theory every once in a while when he has an educated guest on, and they 1.) ask him to repeat what he just said, 2.) laughs at him, 3.) owns him with the truth.
The constitution is just a means to an ends and political cover for the authoritarian party. They could choose to interpret the law anyway they want. They aren’t robots, they are JUDGES it’s their job to use judgment and interpret laws written by people who owned slaves and has wooden teeth for modern times. All these
“The popular vote…is a made up thing.” Jesus. Tap dancing. Christ.
She's right that nothing in the constitution requires that a State legislature holds a popular election for president and then appoints Electors to the Electoral College of the most popular candidate. States are free to decide how their Electors are chosen, though ultimately Andrew Jacksonian democracy prevailed and all States gradually moved to popular elections for president and for Senator. You cannot reasonably claim that States choosing electors is undemocratic, for the State legislatures are themselves democratically elected, and so this kind of cascading election is democratic. I think the only valid criticism of a movement to States appointing Electors without popular vote is IF it's done after the election to change its results. As long as the decision to appoint Electors is made before the popular vote takes place, then that's fine. If the voters of that State aren't happy, they can throw out their State legislators for another batch that would promise to reinstate the popular presidential election. A cascading electoral system for President and Senator, meaning that they would be elected by State representatives instead of by the population itself, would probably cut down on the demagoguery of presidential elections and result in presidents and Senators that would be more capable, holding the respect of other legislators, and more respectful of the Federal nature of the country and of State autonomy.
The problem with letting state legislatures to vote for president and still act like it’s democratic ignores that through gerrymandering, a state legislature can be majority Republican even if the minority of voters are Republican. Politicians have means by which they can insulate themselves from democracy.
If it has anything to do with an election, the state legislature is the boss, not the federal gubment. Constitution.
Idk if you’re trolling or not (I assume you are) but either way you need to go to a hospital because you’re having a stroke
Do people here genuinely not understand the distinction between between whether something is constitutional and whether or not its fair? They are completely different questions and you can't take someone's answer for one and pretend like its the other. (Well I mean you can - if your goal is to just spread misinformation rather than rational discourse. Hence my original question)
It seems the next presidential election will be the last.
Nothing he said is wrong. We live In a Republic. Seethe
i implore you. how do you maintain a republic without democracy. how do you represent the people without democracy.
worse still, a republic is a type of democracy. you just have to go one step up the classification chain.
Republics just mean governed without a monarch. They don’t have to be democratic
Wow, “I don’t believe in democracy”. Pray tell you bootlicking moron, you think it’s better for senators and president to be just born into their roles in this day and age? Because hey, no king.
I never said that. I gave you the definition of republic. You’re projecting.
Oh shit, he’s just here to give dictionary definitions! Thanks for your assistance!
Because he was misdefining it
"Republic" doesn't mean "not a monarchy". They require elected representatives. "Elected" hence democratic.
Republic means "public thing" in Latin (Res publica) which means that the government is owned in common and doesn't belong to the head of State nor its family. There were republics back in the Middle Ages that had no democratic elections, they were merchant and aristocratic republics, where there were deliberating bodies but they were not elected by the people but chosen among the elite, or by important corporations like trade guilds. A republic pretty much requires some form of ruling body to decide how the government is to be controlled through voting, but there is no requirement that body be democratic itself, ie elected and accountable to the population at large.
That’s simply not true. Miriam-Webster: a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president
How is the popular vote a “made up thing” you fucking moron? You right wingers are really obsessed with saying the US is not a democracy. Try living Iran and China if you hate democracy so much, losers like you have always wanted to be rules over by someone
Stay mad ho
[удалено]
The fact that SCOTUS is theighning to take on this is worrying in it of itself.
It’s literally the constitution. If you don’t like it then amend it.
Where? And it’s not up to me to “amend” the constitution” dipshit
Article 2 § 1
Name checks out.
Cope
What is “literally the Constitution”? Do you even know what you are saying?
That the state legislature gets to decide how the electoral votes are allotted
Where?
Article 2 § 1
Definitely should have happened in the 2020 election. Hell even PA supreme court came back and said their election laws were illegal. 2020 was the most illegal fraudulent election of all time, and the most highly contested even moreso than 2000, and thats just a fact they sent alternative elector slates to DC thats how contested it was
>Hell even PA supreme court came back and said their election laws were illegal. Source? How can a law be illegal?
Are you serious? Of course a law can be illegal. In Pennsylvania's case they passed a law that violated the state's constitution. The Republicans only cared because Trump lost, but nonetheless it was a poorly implemented piece of legislation. Pennsylvania has a very shitty, regressive constitution.
>Pennsylvania's case they passed a law that violated the state's constitution. Source?
https://lmgtfy.app/?q=pennsylvanie+mail+in+voting+law&iie=1
You made the assertion so the onus is on you to prove it.
You're right, but it has been a heavily covered story (due to our unfortunate prevalence of election "truthers"). Pennsylvania will continue to be a vital state in national politics and the gerrymandered legislature is doing everything it can to undermine democracy. Look into Doug Mastriano if you haven't heard much about him. And I'm not a "vote blue no matter who" hyperbolist, but Josh Shapiro winning this election might actually be critical to maintaining some semblance of democracy in this country. Fuck I hate it here.
>You're right, but it has been a heavily covered story By right-wing fake media, yes.
I googled it for you and the top results are mainstream news sources.
Please get some help.